XBL is a service. A fucking great one at that. It never needed free games to justify the price.
As of yet, GOG has yet to provide me with a game I want, but thats mainly because I buy most games day 1.
| Mr Puggsly said:
Activision basically said they were getting small piece of Xbox Live money. I recall Sony fans getting angry about that and saying Activision is taking money from people not playing CoD. Considering they are big reason people subscribe, it seems fair to give them a piece of Xbox Live money. EA operates their own servers and I think we can all agree it would be best if they didn't. Anyhow, from my understanding publishers benefit financially from not having to operate their own servers on Xbox Live. I'm not sure who else is getting money directly from MS. I completed ME3, but I never played it online so I don't know anything about "galactic readiness." I'll just say single player and online play should be kept seperate. |
They can have a piece of the money, as you say it's only right but as they can record the games people play, they could surely work it out like that.
The non operating their own servers is only for One, is it not? Titanfall on 360 and PC, does that have this benefit? The biggest other online played games on Live are mainly MS owned (now) and so doubt many other get money. EA due to FIFA and Madden?
My first play through was without playing online, there was an extra ending I didn't know about until I played online, it unlocked because I played online. This is unforgivable as far as I'm concerned because it means I had to play online to do it properly, I really can't understand what was going through their head when they did that. I hope to god they don't pull similar crap in DA:I.
Hmm, pie.
| sabastian said: The only reason XB Live Gold has so many subscribers is because its needed to play COD. Face it, XBox is a COD box. If the next COD is announced as a FREE to play game, XB Live Gold subs would drop faster than a sack of potatoes. |
XBL was strong long before COD. Try harder.
| foodfather said: XBL is a service. A fucking great one at that. It never needed free games to justify the price. |
It should have never charged to begin with, no one else did. Now on the other hand something must have changed in order for them to change their ways, the service was still as good as ever, if not with some questionable decisions (BBC iPlayer dispute and Netflix being the main ones) but features that made it stand out like cross game chat helped a lot.
So why offer free games as well? If PS+ membership take up was so low on PS3 compared to the total user base, it wasn't a threat. Maybe their overall numbers started to decline, so it was a way to entice people back.
Hmm, pie.
The service tripled because it is now required to play games. Xbox live still beats plus in numbers but that is because Microsoft had it in place for almost a decade now. The free games are to justify the price since it is now going against psn with pretty much on par features.
| Mr Puggsly said: Free games apparently brings in few subscribers, even if they're stellar. According to Sony, PS+ subscribers tripled since the launch of PS4. The PS3 and Vita have a massive userbase combined. Yet a console with a userbase around 4 million did a better job bringing in subscribers? Its clear the real way to get subscribers is not letting people play games like CoD and BF online for free. |
Yes, but the stellar, free games KEEP the subscribers. Especially when you directly compare the value proposition offered by the competition. I had an Xbox last generation and grew tired of paying to use my own internet, especially when services such as Netflix were locked behind that pay-wall. I switched to PlayStation 4 because of the value PlayStation+ offers. Looking back at Xbox now I wonder why on earth I paid so much for so little, and I would certainly never go back to doing that!
Edit: Also, I bet Xbox lost more users than PlayStation last generation because of the reasons stated above. It would be very difficult to switch from PlayStation to Xbox, especially when Bioshock Infinite and Metro: Last Light are being offered as an incentive to stay.
The Fury said:
It should have never charged to begin with, no one else did. Now on the other hand something must have changed in order for them to change their ways, the service was still as good as ever, if not with some questionable decisions (BBC iPlayer dispute and Netflix being the main ones) but features that made it stand out like cross game chat helped a lot. So why offer free games as well? If PS+ membership take up was so low on PS3 compared to the total user base, it wasn't a threat. Maybe their overall numbers started to decline, so it was a way to entice people back. |
Please name online gamining services like live on consoles in 2003, that didn't charge for their online.
Not many people knew about PS+ until they were "forced" to open their eyes. Now the word is spreading and everybody will know how it shits all over Live. That's the difference.
| sabastian said: The only reason XB Live Gold has so many subscribers is because its needed to play COD. Face it, XBox is a COD box. If the next COD is announced as a FREE to play game, XB Live Gold subs would drop faster than a sack of potatoes. |
You say this as if PS+ subscriptions wouldn't drop off by quite a bit as well.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
